# America's Election At Stake



## Shiny Grimer (Sep 16, 2009)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...butions10-2009sep10,0,3399940.story?track=rss

Basically, if the precedent is overturned (on the basis that corporations are persons, wtf no they aren't they're not even conscious let alone self-aware, corporate personhood is stupid), then corporation can summon up however much money they want to sponsor political candidates.

Corporations will essentially pick and choose candidates favorable to them and use their VAST MONEY to support them (remember the mormons and prop 8? imagine that from wal-mart for obama). If McCain-Goldfeld is overturned, the Congress is saying "The American Public is OK with this sort of unfair activity. Let's go all the way and make it legal!" and I'm pretty sure once it's passed, there will be a hell of a time overturning it.

What do you think? Should corporations be allowed to make donations to political candidates? What constitutes or shoudl constitute corporate personhood? Will we ever see "Sarah Palin 2012, sponsored by Wal-Mart!" if the precedent is overturned?


----------



## nothing to see here (Sep 18, 2009)

If the leader of a corporation wants to donate money to some politician, let them.

But the corporation itself counting as a separate "person?" That's pretty ridiculous.  It's especially messed up if there aren't any limits on the amount they can donate... even more so if each person in the corporation is _also_ allowed to donate (that is how it works, if I remember right)... you'd be giving a few small groups of people a free pass at ignoring the restrictions on how much money they can bribe politicians with.  Very bad idea.

Speaking of bad ideas... Sarah Crazypants for president? Ugh. That would be *scary.*


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 18, 2009)

well this is pretty much how the Republican Party operates anyway, except read "ludicrously rich old white men" for "corporations".


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 23, 2009)

It doesn't matter. The United States are dead in 20 years if they go on like this.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Sep 23, 2009)

Watershed said:


> It doesn't matter. The United States are dead in 20 years if they go on like this.


*crosses fingers*
*probably gets hands shot off*


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 26, 2009)

As long as the US waste such funding on elections, overseas property wars and other causes and don't invest in health care, education, and environmental issues they are going to the dogs


----------



## Karkat Vantas (Sep 26, 2009)

Watershed said:


> It doesn't matter. The United States are dead in 20 years if they go on like this.


Guess it's time to move to Canada!

This article saddens me.


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 26, 2009)

Don't worry. Canada is going down in 40, and Europe in 50.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 27, 2009)

Watershed said:


> Don't worry. Canada is going down in 40, and Europe in 50.


oh hell no.

I don't want to move to Africa, they have giant poisonous spiders and drinking water that gives you AIDS. ):


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 27, 2009)

don't worry the whole planet is going down soon anyway


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 27, 2009)

you are really cheery, y'know?


----------



## Dewgong (Sep 27, 2009)

but it's probably true.


----------



## Jack_the_White (Sep 27, 2009)

sigh....god bless amerika....

Please dont make corporations people...please...
people are people and corporations are corporations, THERES A FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!
One has sex to reproduce, the other feasts on human flesh, jesus...


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 28, 2009)

goldenquagsire said:


> you are really cheery, y'know?


yeah they tell me i should _lighten up_


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Sep 28, 2009)

I notice you didn't mention Asia or Africa!

Does this mean _there's still hope_?


----------



## Karkat Vantas (Sep 28, 2009)

China will be all that's left in the end.

And then they'll align with Japan and create an uber alliance of Asian countries and take over the world.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 28, 2009)

Watershed said:


> yeah they tell me i should _lighten up_


not a bad idea imo.



> but it's probably true.


still! you won't get about solving things by being grumpy and pessimistic about it!



> I notice you didn't mention Asia or Africa!
> 
> Does this mean there's _still hope_?


massive overcrowding vs. medieval standard of living.

great alternatives there buddy



> China will be all that's left in the end.
> 
> And then they'll align with Japan and create an uber alliance of Asian countries and take over the world.


lol

I don't claim to know jack shit about Asia, but even I know that there's about as much chance of Japan and China being buddies as there is of Nick Griffin giving Desmond Tutu oral sex. for various reasons.


----------



## ultraviolet (Sep 29, 2009)

> I notice you didn't mention Asia or Africa!


yeah or Australia 
come on guys, come over to my place and sit this thing out

why does everyone forget about us .__.


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 29, 2009)

because you're on an island in the middle of the pacific

nobody gives a shit about your lump of rock :)

anyway I don't think it matters where you live, you don't really have an alternative but to die anyway

so make of the rest of yer life what you guys will


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 29, 2009)

hey what Australia is awesome. back off >:(


----------



## Tarvos (Sep 29, 2009)

Sure it is. It has kangaroos. I want my beach house there.


----------



## Jetx (Oct 1, 2009)

Watershed I bet you £1000 that we won't be dead in 50 years ;)


----------



## Tarvos (Oct 1, 2009)

Well then we won't be. But if it's a bit more then I won't live to see it anyway.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Jan 22, 2010)

Update~

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp



> Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.


Screw you, conservatives.

Clearly, the only solution here is to start some kind of corporation in a small but growing business and buy out Congress with mah money, then buy out whoever the President will be, make Congress amend the Constitution to say that corporations are _not_ persons, and then disintegrate before Wal-Mart buys me out.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Jan 22, 2010)

Hey, this is great:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?hp



> We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want.


Now elections can be even more corrupt! Don't vote our way? We'll work against you, then!


----------



## #1 bro (Jan 23, 2010)

okay, this really sucks actually. i heard about it only because my dad is an election law professor and he was going batshit over it, so yeah. 

candidates spend way too much money on campaigns. obama spent 600 million dollars on his campaign. think about all the good that could be done in the world for 600 million dollars. you could feed like 1.5 million starving people for a year with that sort of dough (assuming that a) i did the math right and b) a starving person would be cool with just eating a pack of ramen every day)

and i mean in the end the person who is the president shouldn't be based on how much money they have. it should be based on their policies and whatnot. the government needs to severely limit the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. it's not like people won't know who's running for president - they'll just have to go find their own facts on the internet instead of getting them from bullshit propaganda attack ads.


----------



## Harlequin (Jan 23, 2010)

If corporations are people can they get married? (as long as they're heterosexual, non-related corporations, I mean)


----------



## Dannichu (Jan 24, 2010)

@Zeta:
I totally agree with you in that the amounts of money spent on election campaigns is obscene, but on the other hand, only a handful of people bother to vote in the first place, and that's even after having the candidates shove "I AM SO GREAT" propaganda down their throats for like a year before. How many people would bother to vote if they had to do their own homework to figure out who stood for what?


----------



## #1 bro (Jan 24, 2010)

Probably only people who wanted to take time to inform themselves about the candidates - i.e, the only people who _should_ be voting.


----------



## Involuntary Twitch (Jan 25, 2010)

This also means that the republicans win. Er, well, the capitalists win I guess, and more specifically the libertarians win.

I am doing research on this for debate. I now want to move to Australia. (or Japan, but those guys are pretty messed up, so Australia it is.)


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Jan 26, 2010)

Involuntary Twitch said:


> This also means that the republicans win. Er, well, the capitalists win I guess, and more specifically the libertarians win.
> 
> I am doing research on this for debate. I now want to move to Australia. (or Japan, but those guys are pretty messed up, so Australia it is.)


NO DONT MOVE

I know it's easier to just move to a different country with a better political system than to change the one here, but some people don't have that luxury! Some people (like the many homeless in my city) can't just flee to England or Australia, and they're going to be screwed over the most. The more people that know about this policy, the better chance there is of preventing anything like this from happening ever again. If everyone against this just _leaves_, then you leave the capitalists here, in control. I have a feeling that wouldn't be good for anyone.

So please, US Americans, don't leave! We may have a chance of salvaging _something_ out of this wreckage yet. This goes for everyone: don't just whinge about it, do something! Raise awareness, tell your friends, make a website, I don't know, but don't... give up. :(


----------

